[anti-abuse-wg] [db-wg] RIPE NCC Executive Board election

(Yes, I'm still X-Posting, folks, this will be my last email to all the copied WGs)

Ronald,

I have no issue with this group fighting abuse, I never have. In fact I would warmly welcome more policies, documentation and actions that can do that. That isn't to say there haven't been some put forward, albeit not all of those have reached consensus. That is the nature of our system, but I will say again that we are further along than we were and I hope that progress, even if it's slower than some may like, continues.

What I do not think is suitable is a mail to this and other lists putting out vague comments, with the most specific (ie the position on a list) referring to the wrong person, about an election that is specific to members of the RIPE NCC. The crossover is significant, but far from total and I do not feel this is the proper place for electioneering.

But you are right, I am not the king. Nor would I ever want to be. I am a co-chair of the AA-WG and as such am a facilitator, a coordinator and a go-between between this group and other groups. Part of that role is to facilitate discussion on this list, including the kind of email I sent yesterday.

However I was appointed by this Working Group and it is entirely up to the Working Group if they wish me to continue in the job. The process, for those who are curious, is contained within this document:

https://www.ripe.net/participate/ripe/wg/anti-abuse/anti-abuse-wg-chair-selection-process

This is not done to garner support, nor check in on how I'm doing, albeit feedback is always welcome, rather I want to be as transparent as possible. There is a lot of inertia in our community, as there is in others, and sometimes people assume that those in what we shall loosely refer to as "leadership positions" are immovable.

Anyway, to return to your point and that of others. Is this Working Group, as a single entity, doing enough to fight abuse on the Internet? Almost certainly not.

Are many, many members, including people such as yourself Ronald, working very hard in a lot of places? Absolutely.

How do we do more? Well, to my mind, we go back to the charter (which can, of course, be changed by the Working Group at any point in time) and ask why we have never done the documentation work that's in there? Also, we continue with incremental policy changes, which is a long, hard, slow road, but gets results.

I would also be mindful of what Tõnu said in regards to outside regulation, something I have mentioned at times.

But as with any WG, the power and action is in the hands of the members, not *just* the Co-Chairs, who are members too.

As a final point, if you have a preference as to who you would like to see elected in May and you don't have a vote yourself, then I encourage you to reach out to your friends and colleagues who are members of the RIPE NCC to discuss it with them, broadcast it to suitable fora, hire planes to write messages in the sky, but please, don't do it here.

Thank you,

Brian
Co-Chair, RIPE AA-WG

Brian Nisbet
Service Operations Manager
HEAnet CLG, Ireland's National Education and Research Network
1st Floor, 5 George's Dock, IFSC, Dublin D01 X8N7, Ireland
+35316609040 brian.nisbet at heanet.ie www.heanet.ie
Registered in Ireland, No. 275301. CRA No. 20036270

________________________________________
From: db-wg <db-wg-bounces at ripe.net> on behalf of Ronald F. Guilmette via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net>
Sent: Friday 17 April 2020 06:57
Cc: db-wg at ripe.net; routing-wg at ripe.net; address-policy-wg at ripe.net; anti-abuse-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [db-wg] [anti-abuse-wg] RIPE NCC Executive Board election

CAUTION[External]: This email originated from outside of the organisation. Do not click on links or open the attachments unless you recognise the sender and know the content is safe.


In message <DB7PR06MB5017A8B5895186225DA850AF94D80 at DB7PR06MB5017.eurprd06.prod.outlook.com>,
Brian Nisbet <brian.nisbet at heanet.ie> wrote:

>While obviously I can only make comments for AA-WG (I note there are many
>WGs in x-post) I need to point out that this is not a suitable email for
>this working group.

Others may disagree.  I most certainly do.

The Anti-Abuse Working Group has been repeatedly given ample opportunities
to provide a formal definition for the term "abuse" with respect to the
Internet, and Internet resources.  It has declined all of these opportunities.

It logically and inescapably follows from that fact that as far as the
entire RIPE community goes, "abuse" remains in the eye of the beholder.

I know more than a few people, both on this list and elsewhere, who,
like me, are of the opinion that active participation in the fradulent
theft of IP address blocks, regadless of which portion of the world's
Internet they are stolen from, consititutes "abuse" of a kind that quite
properly is and should be a concern of this working group.

Also and likewise, I know more than a few people, both in this Working
Group, and elsewhere, who, like me, are of the opinion that the act of
attempting to fradulently extort IP address assets from the rightful
owner of said assets, e.g. the City of Cape Town, South Africa, is
"abuse" of a type that is and rightly should be of concern to this
Working Group, and further, that these acts are also a repugnant abuse
against simple honesty, decency, and humanity generally, and ones that
cannot be either excused or dismissed, let alone rewarded with a RIPE NCC
executive board seat.

You, Brian, along with every other member of this Working Group had
your opportunity to codify a definition of "abuse" that would explicitly
exclude theft, fraud, and extortion, thuse rendering exactly such gross
misdeeds explicitly irrelevant to this Working Group.  You declined to do
so, as did others.  It follows that you cannot now say that such acts
have no relevance to the Anti-Abuse Working Group.  You are the Chainman
of the Working Group.  You are not the King... an entirely salient point
which our own Mr. Trump has of late needed to be reminded of also.

Theft, fraud, and extortion, especially as they relates to IP address
allocations, as in this case, may be something that you personally
prefer to turn a blind eye to, but your personal preferences in this
regard cannot and will not override the conscience of those who prefer to
see things as they are, based on abundant evidence, even if those members
of this WG who still place some value on simple decency and honesty are
in the minority.


Regards,
rfg